I can rationalize it being an accident because of three considerations----

1) If it were planned why didn't Janet apply darker make-up to her boob? Her face is covered with foundation and accessories, yet her boob is noticably paler than her face. Anyone in showbiz who would plan such a stunt would make sure her boobs looked to the ten, right? Hers look like her brother's face, circa 1987; not like Janet Jackson 2004.

2) The nipple device is on both breasts. If you look carefully you can see the imprint on the covered breast. This effect would make her boobs appear more firm and pointy, which would fit with her costume's image. So, it's a fashionable, expensive nipple device...so, it's odd that she would wear one if it was MEANT to be covered and never seen...It could be her good-luck charm...we don't know.

3) Immediately after he ripped her shirt, Jackson covered the boob. She didn't imbellish the moment, so it appears it wasn't intended to occur. Conventional wisdom states that a women covers her breast when she's startled and shy. Jackson may not be shy, but she's never posed nude without covering her nipples.

meggie! maybe you can buy janet's after she puts it up for sale on ebay to make $ to pay back when the FCC and whoever else ends up suing her for that little 'appearance'.

even if she never intended for the the big 'reveal', why would one wear an outfit like that if the possibility existed that it could 'accidentally' come off?

also i've heard some reports say the 'boob' cover part was supposed to come off, but leave the red lacy bra part underneath. if this was true, how come there aren't any signs that it was supposed to stay on? like tattered edges where it tore, or threads showing, etc.

It's a breast, for God's sake. Everyone has seen one, even (perish the thought) CHILDREN. Now we've seen Janet Jackson's which looks like, omg, EVERYONE ELSE'S...with jewelry. What's obscene is the football culture that denigrates women, not Janet Jackson's beautiful breast.

Out with breasts , down with breastphobia, puritanical America and wife-beating on Superbowl Sunday.

I suddenly remembered the Superbowl was on and turned on the telly. U Beauty! 5 minutes till half time. I'll get to see the halftime musical performance
Boy! was that a loooooooong 5 minutes of football...well some football, lots of guys in black and white striped shirts having discussions.I had no idea what was going on. I know I was hoping Carolina would win. Crikes those footy players are big, and such shiny pants
So on with the real entertainment, halftime
did I REALLY see that?...Yes, I did!
I must admit before it got to that "point" I was thinking a guy with as much money as Justin could buy himself a decent pair of trousers. I was also thinking someone should throw a bucket of water on him. He seemed intent on making full body contact...well not full, rear end , contact with Janet.
I heard him referred to as "Justin Trousersnake" on the radio yesterday.
I had been thinking earlier how effective Janet's costume was and how simple the change was. The long white ruffled train for the first song and then the flap thingies. They reminded me of the outfit Michael Jackson wore in "Remember The Time".

The "costume malfunction" looked very staged to me, it looks as though she bought her costume at the local bondage shop...I think it is meant to be exposed . I think the term "costume malfunction" shall join "collateral damage" and "weapons of mass destruction"
There was a report about it last night on the Aussie TV news and unfortunately Bono was pictured in the same article.
After the news, the Simpson's came on and in the opening scene Homer threw a burning log down his dad's neck, he rolled Bart and Lisa up in the floor rug and beat them with a baseball bat and Marge shot Homer with a machine gun so opening title was written on the wall in blood...what's more shocking? Bono saying fucking brilliant?
I'm glad you called it beautiful joyfulgirl. Someone earlier in this thread caled it big...and that's had me troubled...'tis not big...is it?

Originally posted by joyfulgirl It's a breast, for God's sake. Everyone has seen one, even (perish the thought) CHILDREN. Now we've seen Janet Jackson's which looks like, omg, EVERYONE ELSE'S...with jewelry. What's obscene is the football culture that denigrates women, not Janet Jackson's beautiful breast.

Out with breasts , down with breastphobia, puritanical America and wife-beating on Superbowl Sunday.

I think American football is more offensive than a half topless Janet Jackson.

Good thing I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here doesn't air in the US sine John Lydon just called the British public 'f**king c*nts' (I censored that for the children ) on live TV for not voting him off.

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,402

Local Time: 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by joyfulgirl It's a breast, for God's sake. Everyone has seen one, even (perish the thought) CHILDREN. Now we've seen Janet Jackson's which looks like, omg, EVERYONE ELSE'S...with jewelry. What's obscene is the football culture that denigrates women, not Janet Jackson's beautiful breast.

Out with breasts , down with breastphobia, puritanical America and wife-beating on Superbowl Sunday.

Aaaaaaaannnnnnd thank you! I could not agree more.

My family and I were discussing this yesterday, and a good point was made, if Janet had ripped Justin's shirt open, exposing his moobs, nobody would've said a word. But heaven forbid a girl's breast is exposed.

Originally posted by meegannie Good thing I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here doesn't air in the US sine John Lydon just called the British public 'f**king c*nts' (I censored that for the children ) on live TV for not voting him off.

is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

Yes but isn't Superbowl supposed to be a kind of thing the whole family should be able to watch?
What message will the little kids get from that - Justin is a cool guy for getting away with it? It's ok to expose a woman like that? (let's not even think about any possible perverts watching)

Domestic abuse and women social status is a different topic.

The equivalent of that would not be Janet exposing Justin's chest but his crotch IMO. (and while we're at it, there's already a lot more female exposure - bras/tight top pictures - in the media than male anyway)

NEW YORK (AP) - Film director Spike Lee criticized Janet Jackson's surprise breast-baring during the Super Bowl halftime show last weekend as a ``new low'' of attention-getting antics by entertainers.

Lee, speaking at Kent State University's regional campus in Stark County, Ohio, on Tuesday night, said there has been a decline in artistry.

He said it's not enough to be a good singer, and that entertainers ``have to do something extra'' - such as the openmouthed kiss Madonna gave Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera during the MTV Video Music Awards in August.

``What's gonna be next? It's getting crazy, and it's all down to money. Money and fame,'' said Lee, the director of ``Malcolm X'' and ``Do the Right Thing.'' ``Somehow the whole value system has been upended.''

Last time I checked, the Super Bowl halftime isn't a strip show-there are plenty of places to see that. There should still be certain standards of decency upheld. That's all I want to say, because I'm not in the mood to be attacked

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,402

Local Time: 03:16 PM

Re: is it really appropriate for that to happen on public TV, in front of millions?

Quote:

Originally posted by U2girl Yes but isn't Superbowl supposed to be a kind of thing the whole family should be able to watch?
What message will the little kids get from that - Justin is a cool guy for getting away with it? It's ok to expose a woman like that? (let's not even think about any possible perverts watching)

I know a few parents have said that their children thought it was disgusting, too. I don't think kids are automatically going to assume that because Justin and Janet did this that it's okay for them to do it, too. Most kids are smarter than that. Besides, assuming it did have some affect on those watching, why do people always worry about the effects this will have on children? Adults could just as easily get the wrong message.

Besides, most kids wouldn't even be giving this a second thought if parents, the media, and the FCC weren't making a huge deal out of it. Now kids who saw it are never going to forget about it, and those that didn't, some of them will start looking around for the uncensored pics on the internet and stuff, just to "see what they missed". If people didn't continue to make a huge deal about this stuff, kids would never give it a second thought.

All the parents need to do is to make sure that their kids know that just because someone did it on TV, that doesn't mean they have to do it as well. But I really don't think it's gonna have some negative effect on kids to begin with.

Quote:

Originally posted by U2girlDomestic abuse and women social status is a different topic.

How does that come about from this? So he exposed her boob...that automatically means that women are being degraded (if a woman chooses to reveal herself, how does that automatically degrade every other woman out there? I don't feel degraded when I see women in revealing clothing) or that it's promoting domestic abuse or something?

Quote:

Originally posted by U2girlThe equivalent of that would not be Janet exposing Justin's chest but his crotch IMO. (and while we're at it, there's already a lot more female exposure - bras/tight top pictures - in the media than male anyway)

True, but the point is, they're still covered by something. Guys don't have to cover themselves up at all when they're on TV. Nobody ever worries about how degrading a guy walking around shirtless may be to other men-the guys sit at home and watch their girlfriends fawning over these muscular men-you don't think that bothers a few of them, makes them wonder how in shape they are? Nobody goes and investigates it, or worries about the message it'll send to young kids. Why must it be so different for women?

And guys wear tight tank tops all the time, just as girls wear tight tank tops. But if a guy wears them, again, nobody says a word. If a girl does, some worry that it might be bringing some unnecessary attention to things or something.